Julian Assange claims his encrypted laptops were stolen in 2010 while traveling

Julian Assange, the founder and publisher of WikiLeaks, filed criminal complaints in Germany and Sweden on Monday and Tuesday, alleging “unlawful interference in [WikiLeaks'] journalistic activities.” President Barack Obama is in Sweden this week on a state visit and had a press conference with his Swedish counterpart on Wednesday.

In a press release published on the WikiLeaks website on Monday, the organization wrote that it would be filing “four criminal complaints to be filed in different jurisdictions by WikiLeaks during the month of September.”

In a 186-page English-language affidavit (a more complete version with all of the appendices is available here), Assange claims that his “journalistic activities” were “monitored” by an American military intelligence officer while Assange was in Germany between December 26, 2009 and December 30, 2009. The silver-haired Australian also claims that there was a “likely unlawful seizure of property” in September 2010 consisting of “three encrypted laptops containing privileged journalistic and legal materials including evidence of a war crime.”

"I am informed by my legal advisors that this formal document may trigger an investigation and that independent judicial bodies may seek explanations of the responsible authorities as a result," he concludes. "I file this affidavit in the knowledge that there will likely be pressures for this matter not to be investigated but in the knowledge that the law requires an investigation. I request that Swedish judicial authorities act swiftly to question and arrest if necessary those who are likely to have information about or bear criminal responsibility for the actions taken against WikiLeaks and my person as detailed in this affidavit."

“Here Be Dragons”

Assange alleges that a bag that he checked on a commercial flight between Arlanda airport in Stockholm and Tegel airport in Berlin simply disappeared. WikiLeaks says it waited until the recent conclusion of the court martial of Pvt. Chelsea Manning (formerly known as Bradley Manning) to file the criminal complaints.

During Manning’s trial, there was testimony on June 11 from Matthew Hosburgh, a current reservist staff sergeant in the United States Marine Corps. Hosburgh had been stationed as a special intelligence system administrator at an American military base in Stuttgart in late 2009. He told the court that he attended a talk by Assange, where that year's annual Chaos Communication Congress during the last week of December 2009 in Berlin was dubbed “Here Be Dragons." A week later, Hosburgh wrote an “after action report” for his superiors concerning the nature of Assange’s talk.

“[Hosburgh’s] report was leaked to WikiLeaks and was being prepared for publication during September 2010,” Assange alleges. “The report was among the WikiLeaks materials that had been kept encrypted in the suitcase that was seized on September 27, 2010 when I was travelling from Stockholm to Berlin.”

Since WikiLeaks' founding in 2007, Assange knows that the very nature of the WikiLeaks organization puts himself at risk. As a result, he has taken certain precautions while previously on the move. After answering questions from Swedish authorities concerning alleged possible sex crimes, Assange left to attend “two long-standing appointments” in Berlin on September 27, 2010.

I implement counter-intelligence practices when I am aware that there is an active intelligence interest in my activities and movements. As I have explained above, I had learned through WikiLeaks' own sources and through media reports that there were heightened activities of this nature directed at me. As an investigative journalist who specializes in intelligence reporting, one of the methods I use to reduce the chance of post-flight surveillance of my work is to buy or exchange tickets immediately before a flight, often at the airport, so that intelligence services do not have sufficient time to observe, understand, alert, authorize, equip, and deploy.

I followed my routine counter-intelligence practice in this instance as well. I arrived at the airport just after noon with the intention of purchasing a ticket shortly before the departure on the early afternoon flight. However, I was not able to gain a seat on my preferred flight and had to wait until a later flight, SAS SK2679 departing at 17.25. As a result, I was forced to wait at the airport for many hours longer than I would prefer, given my security concerns.

I knew that Swedish intelligence services and possibly other countries' intelligence agencies were likely to monitor Arlanda airport and its ticketing system. I was concerned that my continued presence at Arlanda would be noticed and would permit those monitoring the airport to inform US authorities of my presence, take action themselves and/or alert German counterparts or services operating unlawfully in Germany of my pending arrival.

. . .

[Chaos Computer Club member and Assange colleague] Andy Müller-Maguhn (Appendix C) learned through his inquiries that the disappearance of my luggage on a flight with these characteristics was highly unusual: where luggage goes missing there is a 12-hour policy in place for the Star-Alliance partners. If inquiries are not dealt with within this time frame, the inquiry is prioritized. It seemed that this had not happened in my case. My suitcase had simply disappeared from the system. The lack of response or resolution on the part of the authorities and handling companies compounded these unusual characteristics.

“Action required Assange to be arrested under all circumstances”

The rest of the affidavit consists of a detailed timeline of Assange’s and WikiLeaks’ activities in recent years. Assange notes that since being holed up in the Ecuadorean Embassy in London, the Metropolitan Police has been spending over $16,000 per day waiting for him to leave. Presumably, if he did so, he would be immediately arrested and extradited to Sweden and/or the United States.

Assange writes:

On August 24, 2012 I gave a public speech from the Ecuadorian embassy. A high resolution camera operated by the British Press Association captured a police document (Appendix I). The document indicated that the Metropolitan Police's counter-terrorism protective security command (S020) and the unknown 'SS10' unit were involved in surveilling the embassy. In addition to the unexplained presence of the counter-terrorism unit and other police units deployed on this day, the document revealed that the police force was instructed to violate the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations in order to arrest me:

“Action required Assange to be arrested under all circumstances” including if “He comes out with dip immune [diplomatic immunity] as dip bag in dip bag in dip vehicle.”

So, you're a pariah to powerful nations – nations with extensive international surveillance operations and yet you choose to not only fly commercial aircraft, but also to check your luggage which contains critical information (albeit encrypted); What are you, fucking stupid?

If he is then what does that make the British police spending over $16,000 a day just to keep tabs on him? Seems like it shouldn't cost quite that much if the man flies commercial anyway. I'm guessing he was under the assumption that he did no wrong so anything they did would just make said powerful nations look bad or something... but yeah I would keep special information in my sight at all times.

1) More laptops are stolen by someone needing to fuel a bad habit than by the U.S. Government each year.2) Memories change over time. He could have just misplaced his laptops.

Needless to say, the intelligence gathering guy probably had better things to do with his time than to steal some laptops.

I would say the likeliness of memory loss is quite low. For someone as clever as him…

Yeah, he's so clever his "counter-intelligence" practice was to buy a ticket at the last minute before boarding a plane. Uh, that's like #1 on the list of things that gets you detained at an airport these days. He would attract less attention with a flashing light and siren.

1) More laptops are stolen by someone needing to fuel a bad habit than by the U.S. Government each year.2) Memories change over time. He could have just misplaced his laptops.

Needless to say, the intelligence gathering guy probably had better things to do with his time than to steal some laptops.

I would say the likeliness of memory loss is quite low. For someone as clever as him…

Yeah, he's so clever his "counter-intelligence" practice was to buy a ticket at the last minute before boarding a plane. Uh, that's like #1 on the list of things that gets you detained at an airport these days. He would attract less attention with a flashing light and siren.

They investigate his lost luggage. He faces the rape charges filed against him.

He doesn't have any rape charges filed against him. He's wanted for questioning in Sweden pursuant to an investigation of an alleged rape. There have been no charges filed. Assange believes this questioning is a pretext to get him on Swedish soil so Sweden can extradite him to the United States to stand trial for the multitude of charges the US has filed against him.

Since Sweden has no charges against him, it seems fairly obvious to me that Assange has it right. There is no legal case to face in Sweden. He'll walk into an interview room, face no questions about any alleged sexual assault, and instead be greeted by FBI agents waiting to take him to the airport to fly back to the States.

It costs $16,000 a day to keep tabs on one man who is confined to a single building? If that's true the British Police really need to re-prioritize I think. Couldn't they be just as effective with one guy sitting on the stoop with a cellphone to notify HQ if he was on the move?

It costs $16,000 a day to keep tabs on one man who is confined to a single building? If that's true the British Police really need to re-prioritize I think. Couldn't they be just as effective with one guy sitting on the stoop with a cellphone to notify HQ if he was on the move?

There's more than one entry and exit. Also, if the one guy was only able to call it in, there's a reasonable likelihood he could get away, especially if he had arranged a distraction.

It's still absurd to spend that much, but I think they feel they would have even more egg on their face if he skipped the country.

They investigate his lost luggage. He faces the rape charges filed against him.

He doesn't have any rape charges filed against him. He's wanted for questioning in Sweden pursuant to an investigation of an alleged rape. There have been no charges filed. Assange believes this questioning is a pretext to get him on Swedish soil so Sweden can extradite him to the United States to stand trial for the multitude of charges the US has filed against him.

Since Sweden has no charges against him, it seems fairly obvious to me that Assange has it right. There is no legal case to face in Sweden. He'll walk into an interview room, face no questions about any alleged sexual assault, and instead be greeted by FBI agents waiting to take him to the airport to fly back to the States.

Please put down the tinfoil hat and come back to us when you're more knowledgeable about the Swedish criminal justice system

Since Sweden has no charges against him, it seems fairly obvious to me that Assange has it right. There is no legal case to face in Sweden. He'll walk into an interview room, face no questions about any alleged sexual assault, and instead be greeted by FBI agents waiting to take him to the airport to fly back to the States.

Please explain why the US would do this rather than requesting his extradition from the UK.

Since Sweden has no charges against him, it seems fairly obvious to me that Assange has it right. There is no legal case to face in Sweden. He'll walk into an interview room, face no questions about any alleged sexual assault, and instead be greeted by FBI agents waiting to take him to the airport to fly back to the States.

Please explain why the US would do this rather than requesting his extradition from the UK.

It has to do with the differences in the way the extradition treaties are written, the treaty with the UK requires that the crime he is accused of committing be a crime in both countries, but the treaty with Sweden requires only that it be considered a crime in one country. Also, legally Assange is not in the UK, he's in an embassy which is considered sovereign soil so the UK can't extradite him anyway.

Since Sweden has no charges against him, it seems fairly obvious to me that Assange has it right. There is no legal case to face in Sweden. He'll walk into an interview room, face no questions about any alleged sexual assault, and instead be greeted by FBI agents waiting to take him to the airport to fly back to the States.

Please explain why the US would do this rather than requesting his extradition from the UK.

It has to do with the differences in the way the extradition treaties are written, the treaty with the UK requires that the crime he is accused of committing be a crime in both countries, but the treaty with Sweden requires only that it be considered a crime in one country. Also, legally Assange is not in the UK, he's in an embassy which is considered sovereign soil so the UK can't extradite him anyway.

He's not on UK soil now, but if the U.S. wanted him, there was plenty of time to work something up with the UK when he was 'confined' to that mansion. If he got off a plane that landed at JFK, I'm sure the Feds would probably whisk him away, but at this point, I don't think the U.S. really gives two shits about him.

Since Sweden has no charges against him, it seems fairly obvious to me that Assange has it right. There is no legal case to face in Sweden. He'll walk into an interview room, face no questions about any alleged sexual assault, and instead be greeted by FBI agents waiting to take him to the airport to fly back to the States.

Please explain why the US would do this rather than requesting his extradition from the UK.

It has to do with the differences in the way the extradition treaties are written, the treaty with the UK requires that the crime he is accused of committing be a crime in both countries, but the treaty with Sweden requires only that it be considered a crime in one country. Also, legally Assange is not in the UK, he's in an embassy which is considered sovereign soil so the UK can't extradite him anyway.

To the point though they could have extradited him before he ducked into the Ecuadorian embassy but chose not to do so, probably as you said because they would then have to do it above board, showing cause to a UK court and didn't want to do that, they'd rather shuffle him through Sweden, no questions asked.

To the point though they could have extradited him before he ducked into the Ecuadorian embassy but chose not to do so, probably as you said because they would then have to do it above board, showing cause to a UK court and didn't want to do that, they'd rather shuffle him through Sweden, no questions asked.

This just sounds like paranoid conspiracy talk to me. What supposed US law would he be charged under that doesn't have a similar UK counterpart? I'd think the UK would be more inclined to agree to US extradition than Sweden would, given tight historical US/UK ties.

To the point though they could have extradited him before he ducked into the Ecuadorian embassy but chose not to do so, probably as you said because they would then have to do it above board, showing cause to a UK court and didn't want to do that, they'd rather shuffle him through Sweden, no questions asked.

This just sounds like paranoid conspiracy talk to me. What supposed US law would he be charged under that doesn't have a similar UK counterpart? I'd think the UK would be more inclined to agree to US extradition than Sweden would, given tight historical US/UK ties.

For publishing e.g. Manning's leaks, the belief is that he would be tried for espionage.

Since Sweden has no charges against him, it seems fairly obvious to me that Assange has it right. There is no legal case to face in Sweden. He'll walk into an interview room, face no questions about any alleged sexual assault, and instead be greeted by FBI agents waiting to take him to the airport to fly back to the States.

Please explain why the US would do this rather than requesting his extradition from the UK.

It has to do with the differences in the way the extradition treaties are written, the treaty with the UK requires that the crime he is accused of committing be a crime in both countries, but the treaty with Sweden requires only that it be considered a crime in one country. Also, legally Assange is not in the UK, he's in an embassy which is considered sovereign soil so the UK can't extradite him anyway.

Sweden has the same standards, with the extra ruling that an extradition may not be granted for military or political purposes. The bar for extraditing him from Sweden is much higher than it is from extraditing him from the UK.

And that's if he even had charges pending, which at this time, he doesn't.

To the point though they could have extradited him before he ducked into the Ecuadorian embassy but chose not to do so, probably as you said because they would then have to do it above board, showing cause to a UK court and didn't want to do that, they'd rather shuffle him through Sweden, no questions asked.

This just sounds like paranoid conspiracy talk to me. What supposed US law would he be charged under that doesn't have a similar UK counterpart? I'd think the UK would be more inclined to agree to US extradition than Sweden would, given tight historical US/UK ties.

For publishing e.g. Manning's leaks, the belief is that he would be tried for espionage.

If that's the case, there are quite a few real journalists out there right now who have published U.S. 'secrets'. Yet, they're not hiding...then again, they also aren't wanted for questioning in another country.

Wait, let me understand this: he is complaining that his private information has escaped his control, has become free against his will?? After he has made clear that he feels he has the right to do exactly that to other's private data? Wut?

To the point though they could have extradited him before he ducked into the Ecuadorian embassy but chose not to do so, probably as you said because they would then have to do it above board, showing cause to a UK court and didn't want to do that, they'd rather shuffle him through Sweden, no questions asked.

This just sounds like paranoid conspiracy talk to me. What supposed US law would he be charged under that doesn't have a similar UK counterpart? I'd think the UK would be more inclined to agree to US extradition than Sweden would, given tight historical US/UK ties.

For publishing e.g. Manning's leaks, the belief is that he would be tried for espionage.

If that's the case, there are quite a few real journalists out there right now who have published U.S. 'secrets'. Yet, they're not hiding...then again, they also aren't wanted for questioning in another country.

Uh... Obama has charged journalists with espionage before, and the US argues that wikileaks isn't journalism because they get to define what journalism is.

Wait, let me understand this: he is complaining that his private information has escaped his control, has become free against his will?? After he has made clear that he feels he has the right to do exactly that to other's private data? Wut?

This just sounds like paranoid conspiracy talk to me. What supposed US law would he be charged under that doesn't have a similar UK counterpart? I'd think the UK would be more inclined to agree to US extradition than Sweden would, given tight historical US/UK ties.

To be fair, paranoid conspiracy talk has been disturbingly accurate as of late.

To the point though they could have extradited him before he ducked into the Ecuadorian embassy but chose not to do so, probably as you said because they would then have to do it above board, showing cause to a UK court and didn't want to do that, they'd rather shuffle him through Sweden, no questions asked.

This just sounds like paranoid conspiracy talk to me. What supposed US law would he be charged under that doesn't have a similar UK counterpart? I'd think the UK would be more inclined to agree to US extradition than Sweden would, given tight historical US/UK ties.

For publishing e.g. Manning's leaks, the belief is that he would be tried for espionage.

If that's the case, there are quite a few real journalists out there right now who have published U.S. 'secrets'. Yet, they're not hiding...then again, they also aren't wanted for questioning in another country.

Uh... Obama has charged journalists with espionage before, and the US argues that wikileaks isn't journalism because they get to define what journalism is.

I feel you Julian. If I could press criminal charges for all the luggage the airlines have lost over the years, a lot of airlines would be in some serious trouble.

So, at best, the idiot was dumb enough to check his laptops instead of carrying them on? Oh, and 3 laptops? Why 3 laptops? Why not one with a couple of external drives? Or even maybe two laptops and an external drive or two? Whatever.

Yes, so waiting 3 years...okay.

My favorite is still describing his leaving Sweden for Germany. Yes...why don't we call it what it is, fleeing the country before you could possibly be arrested in connection to those alleged crimes you were briefly questioned about, that amount to sexual assault under Swedish law.

Okay, you want to file criminal charges over your lost luggage, that is fine. Appear in person in the locations you are requesting criminal charges be brought and they'll get right on that.

This just sounds like paranoid conspiracy talk to me. What supposed US law would he be charged under that doesn't have a similar UK counterpart? I'd think the UK would be more inclined to agree to US extradition than Sweden would, given tight historical US/UK ties.

To be fair, paranoid conspiracy talk has been disturbingly accurate as of late.

Point taken.

I still think Assange is making shit up in this particular case. I doubt the UK would not extradite him based on espionage charges, if that were the case.

So, you're a pariah to powerful nations – nations with extensive international surveillance operations and yet you choose to not only fly commercial aircraft, but also to check your luggage which contains critical information (albeit encrypted); What are you, fucking stupid?